Neither the slippery slope argument nor the moral preferences of others should outweigh the right of a sound-minded terminal patient to end their suffering.

The debate over assisted suicide has been building a head of steam lately. In Ontario, Dr. Donald Low produced a video eight days before his death from a brain tumour castigating the medical establishment for forcing unnecessary suffering on terminal patients.

Two decades on, the Supreme Court of Canada looks set to grapple again with the difficult and charged issue of physician-assisted suicide — what some consider death with dignity and others worry will lead to killings of convenience against seniors and the disabled.

A British Columbia ruling last week should throw the issue back into the highest legal arena 20 years after it denied Sue Rodriguez the right to enlist the help of a physician in arranging her own death. Rodriguez, who suffered from ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease, ironically was trying to prolong her life. She could have lawfully committed suicide while still physically able. But she wanted to hang onto life until the pain and suffering became too unbearable, by which time she would lack the capacity to end it without assistance.

Such are the tragedies inflicted on individuals by bad laws — or good laws badly applied. Only a checked-out court would refuse to revisit such a vital issue decided by such a slim margin so many lifetimes ago.

At the heart of the matter lies Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, which makes it unlawful to aid or abet a suicide or suicide attempt. The punishment can run to 14 years in prison.

By a 2-1 margin, the B.C. court last week upheld the section. But the judges seemed motivated more by “binding precedent” than genuine conviction. Indeed, they talked up the idea, should the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal, of a “constitutional exemption” for those for whom an otherwise sound law might produce “an extraordinary and even cruel effect.” The judges even suggested criteria — clear-mindedness, rationality, beyond outside influence, supported by medical opinion — that might guide such exemptions.

The debate over assisted suicide has been building a head of steam lately. Quebec has introduced a bill allowing doctors to administer a lethal dose of medication in exceptional circumstances. In Ontario, the highly respected physician, Donald Low, produced an agitated video eight days before his death from a brain tumour castigating the medical establishment for forcing unnecessary suffering on terminal patients. “I’m just frustrated not being able to control my own life, not being able to make that decision for myself when enough is enough.” And now the B.C. case.

Opposition to assisted suicide is concentrated among religious and disabled groups. For the former, the issue is moral, like abortion. For the latter, the matter is more complicated. Fears resound that giving an inch on Section 241 will put the disabled at risk of being conditioned or coerced into accepting death. “There are so many vulnerable people who would very quickly find that the ability to request death soon becomes the duty to die,” is how a spokeswoman for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition put it.

Although one sympathizes with the anxieties underlying such sentiments, the reasoning that a dying person choosing to die earlier could lead to a disabled person being subjected to unwanted death is as tenuous as logic gets. Apprehension is a poor basis for public policy.

This is an issue unfortunately far too emotive for cautious governments, past, present and probably future. The current government, with a political base disproportionately comprised of religious groups, certainly cannot be expected to stimulate an open debate.

So it comes down to the nine Supreme Court justices, selected for the very purpose of dealing with the most challenging dilemmas of law and society. The only remaining member from the 1993 Rodriguez decision is the ever-practical and sensible Beverley McLachlin, now the broadly respected chief justice.

In the minority back then, she was troubled that Rodriguez by virtue of her physical incapacity was denied the personal autonomy available to others. She also looked askance at the dubious distinction drawn between passive withdrawal of medical support and active measures and noted the state’s interest in ensuring people did not take the lives of others was not absolute, as evidenced for example, by the right to self-defence.

All in all, McLachlin felt that Rodriguez was being treated as “a scapegoat” for others who might improperly be persuaded to commit suicide. She was right then. Hopefully, she will get the opportunity to so convince her present-day colleagues.

Sue Rodriguez famously summed up the entire assisted suicide issue in a four-word question that could be a rallying cry for boomers and youth: “Whose body is this?” Neither the ultra-theoretical slippery slope argument nor the moral preferences of others should be allowed to outweigh the right of a sound-minded terminal patient to end their non-theoretical suffering at a time and place of their choosing. It’s their body, after all.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.